Yes this is the essence of what I was getting to. Thank you! This makes it easier to reconnect the discussion. It is unfortunate that renaming the discussion creates another new thread :P (we can't win :) ) I agree that we'll end up splitting this in independent discussions on specific subsets of the docs that we'll label accordingly.
On Sat, May 18, 2024 at 4:30 AM Antoine Pitrou <anto...@python.org> wrote: > On Fri, 17 May 2024 07:37:37 -0700 > Julien Le Dem <jul...@apache.org> wrote: > > This context should be added in the PR description itself. > > Good point, I've added context in the PR description. Let me know if > that's sufficient. > > > From a design process perspective, it makes more difficult to converge > the > > discussion and build consensus if we start multiple threads rather than > > keeping the discussion on the original thread. > > A single discussion thread won't be able to drive forward all the > potential changes that we're currently talking about (the Google doc is > enumerating *a lot* of potential changes). > > However, I should have entitled this discussion appropriately. > The original title is misleading: my PR is only concerned with the "wide > schema" use case. Let me fix this here :-) > > Regards > > Antoine. > > >
